The Supreme Court of India.
Credit: PTI File Photo
The Supreme Court’s decision to revoke the bail granted to Kannada actor Darshan Thoogudeepa, his associate Pavithra Gowda, and other co-accused in the Renukaswamy murder case extends beyond the confines of this specific incident.
It reasserts the fundamental principle that all are equal before the law – regardless of power, wealth, or celebrity status – while calling out the questionable application of judicial discretion in such high-profile cases. According to the prosecution, Darshan and his associates allegedly kidnapped Renukaswamy over derogatory messages sent to Pavithra, confined him in a shed, and subjected him to brutal assault and torture that ultimately caused his death.
His body was subsequently discarded in a drain. The order comes as an endorsement of the police investigation and the prosecution’s case, the second such instance in recent months, after Prajwal Revanna’s conviction for sexual assault.
What is most striking in the judgement is its unambiguous assertion: “Whosoever he may be, howsoever high, he is not above the rule of law.” This directly addresses a long-standing public concern that celebrity status or political influence can secure undue leniency in the justice system.
The court’s stern warning that prison officers would be suspended if “five-star” treatment were extended to the accused, a pointed reference to Darshan earlier being spotted smoking in jail, is a timely reminder that legal compliance is a duty for all, not a privilege selectively enforced. Equally significant is the apex court’s sharp rebuke of the Karnataka High Court’s previous order granting bail.
Describing it as “perverse” and the result of a “mechanical application” of discretionary powers, the bench noted that the High Court had improperly scrutinised witness statements at the bail stage. This falls within the domain of the trial court during cross-examination, and is not for a higher court to weigh at a preliminary stage. As Justice J B Pardiwala remarked in an earlier hearing, the High Court essentially dictated “an acquittal order” and usurped the trial court’s role.
The Supreme Court’s intervention is, therefore, not merely a procedural correction but a vital reinforcement of judicial discipline. It underscores the separation between pre-trial and trial processes, ensuring bail decisions are guided by sound legal principles.
By stressing that the gravity of the allegations, supported by substantial forensic material, warranted the cancellation of bail, the court has sent a strong message that mechanical rulings, misplaced leniency, or influential defendants have no place in the dispensation of justice. At a time when public faith in institutions is fragile, this ruling is both a safeguard for the integrity of the justice system and a clarion call to uphold the rule of law without fear or favour.